I had to respond to a statement you made here that is completely incorrect according to Ephesians 2:8-9.
“Where we part ways is that Catholics reject the Protestant doctrine of sola fide. Faith alone is not enough. First, you need grace, and then that grace is justified through works, through which we are sanctified.”
Not only in Ephesians is this discussed, but also to a great extent in the book of Romans. Here are some verses for you:
Ephesians 2:8-9
(8) For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
(9) Not of works, lest any man should boast.
Romans 3:20
Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
Romans 3:27-28
(27) Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.
(28) Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
Romans 4:2-5
(2) For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
(3) For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
(4) Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
(5) But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
Romans 11:5-6
(5) Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.
(6) And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
2 Timothy 1:8-9
(8) Be not thou therefore ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me his prisoner: but be thou partaker of the afflictions of the gospel according to the power of God;
(9) Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,
Titus 3:5
Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
It is arrogance against God to say that we can partially effect our own salvation. We start out dead in our trespasses and sins. Christ, while we were yet sinners, died for us. That is the heart of the “good news.” Romans 10:9 makes it abundantly clear. Also, where Paul says the law was our schoolmaster, teaching us that we aren’t capable of living up to God’s standards. If we are trusting in our own works, none of us are righteous enough. This, again, is clearly taught.
John 10:9 (”I am the door”) and John 15:1 (”I am the true vine”). “I am the door” and “I am the vine” make sense as metaphors because Christ is like a door—we go to heaven through him—and he is also like a vine—we get our spiritual sap through him.
But Christ takes John 6:35 far beyond symbolism by saying, “For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed” (John 6:55) - Jesus continues: “As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me” (John 6:57). The Greek word used for “eats” (trogon) is very blunt and has the sense of “chewing” or “gnawing.” This is not the language of metaphor. Ask any Greek.
LUKE 22
You quoted:
19. And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them saying, “ This is my body, given for you; do this in remembrance of me.”
Here’s the next verse for continuity:
20. In the same way, after supper, he took the cup, saying. “This cup is the New Covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.”
While denying the miracle of the Real Presence of Jesus’ body and blood in the Eucharist, you ignore Jesus’s clear words “This is my body” and “my blood”, and concentrate on the phrase “Do this in remembrance of me” and use it to argue that the Eucharist was only meant to be symbolic. But of course, if we do something in memory of someone, (give a gift, for example) that does not necessarily mean that what we do (or the gift) is not real.
Let’s read some more verses from John where we can see whether they confirm the symbolic, or the Real, view of Communion.
JOHN 6
53 Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.
54 “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. (I love that hymn)
55 “For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.
56 “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him.
57 “Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.
58 “This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever.”
Yes, John continues to confirm that Jesus is not speaking symbolically. He’s stating that His flesh and blood are not only real food and real drink, but that His body and blood are necessary to give life. In fact, in the next verse his hearers certainly understood his teaching as we can see from their reaction....
60. On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”
And some of them didn’t accept His teaching then, either...
66. From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him. Why didn’t Jesus call them back and tell them he was just speaking symbolically? These were his disciples, people used to his remarkable ways.
But he knew some didn’t believe. (It’s here, in the rejection of the Eucharist, that Judas fell away; look at John 6:64.) “After this, many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him” (John 6:66).
This is the only record we have of any of Christ’s followers forsaking him for purely doctrinal reasons. If it had all been a misunderstanding, if they made a mistake in taking a metaphor in a literal sense, why didn’t Jesus call them back and straighten things out? There were other occasions when there was confusion and Jesus explained just what he meant (cf. Matt. 16:5–12). But here, where any misunderstanding would be fatal, Jesus didn’t correct Himself. Instead, He repeated Himself for greater emphasis - four times he said they would have “to eat my flesh and drink my blood.”
John 6 was an extended promise of what would be instituted at the Last Supper—and it was a promise that could not be more explicit.
Here’s Paul - still consistent...
1 Corinthians 11
27 Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.
28 A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup.
29 For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.
Once again, there’s an insistence on the reality of the presence of the body and blood of Jesus in Communion, and a demand that we recognize the sacredness of this sacrament. Yet this seems to be another of those biblical passages that most Protestants completely ignore. Why would Paul instruct them in such a serious way if it were mere wine and bread? Where did Paul hear these Words, from the Apostles, of course...and it continued on via Oral Tradition...via the early Church...
Read above what the Church Fathers believed only 30-40yrs later - they continued to take John 6 literally. In fact, there is no record from the early centuries that implies Christians doubted the constant Catholic interpretation. There exists no document in which the literal interpretation is opposed and only the metaphorical accepted. We can all learn a lot from how the Holy Scripture should be interpreted by examining the writings of early Christians.
All and all, one can see that the idea that Holy Communion is only symbolic and that the bread and wine of the Eucharist does not become the Real Body and Blood of Jesus, is a totally novel doctrine, newly invented by Protestants.